San Francisco (September 24, 2009): In 2007, facing
growing opposition to its water management practices, particularly
in India, Coca-Cola's CEO, Neville Isdell came up with a brilliant
idea.

The Coca-Cola company, he announced, will become water neutral, replenishing
every drop of water they use, and therefore, as the suggestion went,
Coca-Cola would have no impact of water resources around the world.

Voila! Problem solved, a company using 300 billion liters of water
annually would have no impact on water resources. Sustainability doesn't
get any better than that.

The only problem was that Coca-Cola knew that water neutrality was
impossible to achieve.

In a concept paper on water neutrality that Coca-Cola developed with others, it clearly
stated that, "In a strict sense, the term 'water neutral' is troublesome
and even may be misleading. It is often possible to reduce a water
footprint, but it is generally impossible to bring it down to zero."

But minor details such as "misleading", "troublesome" and "impossible"
did not stop Coca-Cola from using the term liberally and widely.

And in India, where they have faced the most intense opposition (two
bottling plants have been shut down), Coca-Cola went on a fast track,
announcing that they will become water neutral by the end of 2009.

"Please note that the terminology "water offset", like "water neutrality"
is controversial……...Until a better terminology is identified and
accepted by the broader water community, we are using the term offset."
- From Coca-Cola's "Achieving Water Balance through Community Partnership,"
February 2009.

But the marketing appeal of a concept like water neutrality, however
impossible it may be to achieve, is simply too great for a publicity
driven Coca-Cola to pass by.

Sharing the opening plenary of the Clinton Global Initiative with
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Walmart two days ago, Muhtar Kent,
Coca-Cola's new CEO, blurted out that Coca-Cola will become water neutral by 2020.

Wait a minute. Is there something new from the "broader water community"
since February this year that has enabled water neutrality to be possible
and not controversial?

No, there isn't, and trust me, we would know if there was because
we keep a close watch on Coca-Cola and its shenanigans.

Muhtar Kent's blurt is truly indicative of how Coca-Cola has approached
its "water stewardship" initiatives.

The company is more interested in seeking publicity - manufacturing
a green image of itself, in this case, than it is about doing the
work on sustainability. There is a serious disconnect between the
rhetoric and the ground reality.

Muhtar Kent should have used the term "water offset", as the company
had decided just a few months ago. But the term "water offset" does
not "have the same gravity or resonance (inspiration) with the media,
officials or NGO's as the term neutrality," according to Coca-Cola's
own concept paper on water neutrality.

It was not a slip of the tongue, mind you. You don't slip tongues
when Obama and Clinton are on the same stage.

It was too great a public relations opportunity to let pass by, no
matter how misleading and troublesome it may be. Coca-Cola simply
could not exercise restraint and use the corrected term.

Someone Forgot to Tell the Indians

Even though the Coca-Cola company announced it would not use the controversial
term "water neutral" in February this year, Coca-Cola India officials
have not only continued using the term, they have even one-upped the
concept - water positive!

Coca-Cola faces significant community opposition in Kala Dera in north
India and a Coca-Cola funded study has recommended the plant's closure
because of the company's significant contribution to the water shortages in the area.

Initially, Coca-Cola blamed the lack of rainfall in the area for the
water shortages.

The area does indeed receive low rainfall (less than 600 mm annually)
which begs the question as to why the company built a bottling plant
in a low-rain, drought prone, desert area in the first place. Nine
of the last twenty six years have been drought years in Kala Dera
and just a little bit of common sense would suggest that this would
be the last place on earth to build a water guzzling Coca-Cola bottling
plant.

Kala Dera is in the midst of a drought right now, perhaps the most
intense in the last 40 years, and groundwater levels have dropped
5.83 meters (19 feet) in just one year between May 2007 and May 2008,
an unprecedented drop anywhere.

When blaming the rainfall argument failed to contain the growing community
opposition, Coca-Cola decided it was going to use the same rains to
solve the problem - by harvesting rainwater.

That's a fine idea. First blame the lack of rains for the increased
water shortages, and when that doesn't work, lets put the failed rains
to use, by harvesting the rainwater.

Coca-Cola's claims are so preposterous that we are not sure just who
they think they are trying to fool.

Coca-Cola's claims of rising groundwater levels fall flat in the face
of government data which show that groundwater levels have dropped
by more than 19 meters (62 feet) in the first eight years of Coca-Cola's
operations in the area, and such precipitous drops had never been
witnessed before.

Unusable Well in Kala Dera Showing Depleted Water Level

Coca-Cola's claims of recharging six times the amount of water it
extracts in Kala Dera is also a candidate for a world record but it
too doesn't pass muster.

In other words, they just made it up. Without measuring, without actually
knowing how much water they recharged.

And the amount of water they claim to recharge is astronomical, particularly
in a low-rainfall area. Coca-Cola is claiming to recharge about 1.3
billion liters of water annually - just in Kala Dera alone - a fantastical
number by any measure. It is enough water to meet the basic drinking
water needs for a million people - for an entire year!

If Coca-Cola's recharge claims in Kala Dera were true, there would
be no water shortages in the area. But there are, and they are getting
rapidly worse.

If we were part of Coca-Cola's public relations team, we would suggest
a tagline to reflect what they are suggesting:

Got Drought? Build a Coca-Cola bottling plant!

And then wait to see how many offers come clamoring in.

Communities in India facing an assault on their water resources and
livelihoods because of Coca-Cola's bottling operations have issued
a challenge to Coca-Cola.

If Coca-Cola is so confident about its rainwater harvesting programs
to replenish the water they use, why doesn't Coca-Cola just use the
harvested rainwater to meet all its production needs?

It's a simple solution, really, and its based on Coca-Cola's logic.

But Coca-Cola won't accept the challenge. Why? Because it doesn't
work.

So much for becoming water neutral.

Amit Srivastava is the Director of India Resource
Center, an international campaigning organization based in San Francisco,
USA.